The Wedge Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: I don't think that dmc515 realizes that ID's will be checked at the polls. That's the missing link. ID's are checked at the polls and if one doesn't have the right ID, one can't vote. Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 12 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said: But how? I fail to see the connection, especially because voter registration and the issuance of photo IDs are handled by two different governmental departments. Now, if you were to switch the issuance of IDs to the department that handles voter registration, then I could better see the connection. Because voter registration cards can be used as one of the two required documents in many states to get an ID - and/or can make it easier to obtain a social security card if you don't have/lost one. Automatic registration means you can register online to obtain a voter registration card. Again, the theoretical mechanism for automatic registration increasing participation is once individuals are "automatically" enfranchised they tend to be motivated to vote (activating the "D" term in the calculus of voting). This theory has been supported in a multitude of empirical studies. 9 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said: So yeah, I think hitting the Republican Party on both fronts, whittling away that the barriers to getting a "Voter ID" while expanding the ease of voting might be the right way to go. Agreed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. New York is the same way I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Well, if politicians were truly concerned about voter fraud, they'd be looking at absentee ballots rather than in-person voting. But they don't, so I have to conclude it's more about suppression. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. Virginia requires photo IDs, but university/college/school- and employer-issued IDs are accepted. Also, the state board of elections offers photo IDs that are relatively easy to obtain and are only offered to people who do not have any other acceptable photo ID (so there's no catch-22 issue where you need a photo ID to get a photo ID). ETA: They are also free. If a state is going to require photo IDs for voting, Virginia is probably the best practices example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Ha, Paul Ryan just refuted the notion that they have only been working on a Health Care plan for a few months. They started over a year ago. Are we supposed to applaud that? I'm pretty damn sure they've been saying repeal and replace for far, far longer than that. As a side note, my very republican father who railed against Obamacare for years as unconstitutional now wants universal health care. So what's changed since then? He retired. Turns out Medicare is pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: No they shouldnt. Any 'originalist' reading of the constitution will also support the thesis that citizens of the US should not be required to carry an ID. Agreed. Ask a Republican who is in favor of gutting the Voting Act to show you where in the Constitution it mentions having ID to vote...and watch their heads explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 36 minutes ago, Fez said: Virginia requires photo IDs, but university/college/school- and employer-issued IDs are accepted. Also, the state board of elections offers photo IDs that are relatively easy to obtain and are only offered to people who do not have any other acceptable photo ID (so there's no catch-22 issue where you need a photo ID to get a photo ID). ETA: They are also free. If a state is going to require photo IDs for voting, Virginia is probably the best practices example. This is Pennsylvania, the most bass ackward state outside of Alabama. That just isn't going to happen here, sadly. If there's a way to make things even more difficult for people, our state legislature, controlled by (who else?) Republicans, will find it and implement it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 51 minutes ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. 38 minutes ago, Fez said: Virginia requires photo IDs, but university/college/school- and employer-issued IDs are accepted. Also, the state board of elections offers photo IDs that are relatively easy to obtain and are only offered to people who do not have any other acceptable photo ID (so there's no catch-22 issue where you need a photo ID to get a photo ID). ETA: They are also free. If a state is going to require photo IDs for voting, Virginia is probably the best practices example. I was going to say the same thing. After voting all my voting life in illinois, I was actually taken aback and slightly aggrieved that I was being asked for an ID when voting in Virgina for the first time this past November. It made so little sense to me. And while I realize it's not a photo ID, I got my original voter ID card when I got that first social security card. Of course, I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, but I had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. How many names, addresses, and signatures of deceased relatives, friends, and Soros-backed fake voter rolls have you memorized? Everybody knows that people vote up to a dozen times without ID. /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. I have NEVER been asked for identification to vote. We sign the book that shows we voted in the election, whichever one it is and whatever date. There are many many many lines of our signatures in the precinct book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, The Wedge said: Not in all states. I have voted in Illinois for almost 20 years now and have never had to show ID. They ask for address and then ask for a signature to compare to the one given when a voter first registered. It's about the same in Nebraska. You sign on a line which is next to your name on a computer printout of all voters registered in the precinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 6 hours ago, theguyfromtheVale said: One can argue about the fairness of an electoral system if 45% of the vote get you more than 66% of the seats in parliament, enough to change the constitution. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau here in Canada has a majority government with 39% of the vote. And former PM Stephen Harper also had a majority government with 39% of the vote. During the election Trudeau promised it would be the last first-past-the-post election in Canada, but after a year of election reform discussions the topic has been shelved. The Conservatives don't want proportional representation because they worry they will never have a majority again, and the Liberals always forget about reform once their party is back in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I think I'll just leave this right here: http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/02/26/how-baby-boomers-destroyed-everything/lVB9eG5mATw3wxo6XmDZFL/story.html?event=event25#comments I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article - but one thing is true, the Boomers are going to leave their children with a more difficult world than they inherited by just about any metric. And that is how they'll be remembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Rachael Maddow (yea I know) did a segment last night about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cyprus, Wilbur Ross, Paul Manafort and Dmitry Rybolovlev. Like everything with regards to Russia and Trump, there are an amazing number of coincidences. This is what I am able to remember: Deutsche Bank was fined by the DOJ $630M for laundering $10B worth of Russian money The offices involved in this money laundering scheme was in New York, Cyprus and Moscow Moscow investigated Deutsche Bank and fined them $5,000 for money laundering Josef Ackermann was the CEO of Deutsche Bank while they laundered $10B of Russian money Deutsche Bank is I believe Trump's largest known lender Two of the three largest shareholders of Bank of Cyprus are Viktor Vekselberg, a former KGB colleague of Putin and a long time ally and Dmitry Rybolovlev, a Russian oligarch worth billions The third largest shareholder? Wilbur Ross, our new Director of Commerce who is still on the Board of Directors at the Bank of Cyprus and has no other ties that I can find to any other banks The chairman of the board of directors at the Bank of Cyprus is now Josef Ackermann, who came back to banking in 2014 based on Wilbur Ross' proposal Now, Dmitry Rybolovlev is going through a messy divorce so he has been buying up assets left and right all of the World in order to put his money somewhere. His wife is owed something like $4B in the divorce One of the assets Rybolovlev bought was a house in Palm Beach from Donald Trump for $100M in cash. Trump originally bought the house in auction for $40M then out of nowhere, Rybolovlev wanted to buy it for more than double the original price. He literally put $60M directly into Trump's pockets in 2008. Lucky for Trump eh? Rybolovlev never moved in, never set foot in the house and it has since been torn down. That's a lot of money to spend on a house you have zero plans to ever do anything with Steele's dossier on Trump said that the reason Putin was doing surveillance on Trump in 2013 was because of his connections to Russian oligarchs who he thought was taking money out of Russia. Seems Trump has been involved with some Russian oligarchs... So to summarize, Deutsche Bank launders $10B of Russian money through three main offices. In one of those countries, there is a Bank of Cyprus there that has strong connections to two Russians, one who's a close friend of Putin, another who bought a house from Trump for $60M than the original price and never set foot in it. The third connection is Trump's new Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, who has no other ties to banking that I can see. The three of them, being the largest shareholders, put Josef Ackermann in charge as chairman of the bank and he was the CEO overseeing Deutsche Bank as they laundered all this Russian money. Oh and Deutsche Bank is I believe Trump's biggest lender and debt holder. No smoking gun here as usual but a lot of interesting connections that will need to be investigated. As for Paul Manafort, we all know his ties to pro-Putin factions in Ukraine. We also know that he's in a secret, hand written notebook receiving $12m that was recovered from a mansion of a fleeing pro-Putin oligarch. This is why he resigned as campaign manager. Now we find out that his daughter was hacked and she received blackmail texts while he was running Trump's campaign about some shady details someone knew. Manafort has admitted the blackmail texts did happen but said nothing came of it. In the Steele dossier, there is a note there that Manafort set up a meeting in 2012 with Trump and some other guy. Trump denies this because he claims he didn't know Manafort in 2012 and never had worked with him. Fair enough. But then the question comes, how did Paul Manafort end up Trump's campaign manager? He wasn't known in Republican political circles. He disappeared from Washington for years. He was in Ukraine and Philippines running campaigns for some shady figures. So if Trump didn't know him until recently, who introduced them and how did Trump come to trust someone he had no ties to nor any Republicans? This might have been discovered but I can't find anything about it. I think this investigation is going to take years as there is so much to untie and I think Republicans who continually block the investigation or ignore his conflicts of interest (and block the release of his tax returns) are the worst. If it turns out that all of these coincidences are connected and this ends up being the largest scandal of my lifetime, I hope the Republicans burn with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 https://www.brookings.edu/blog/ben-bernanke/2017/02/28/why-dodd-franks-orderly-liquidation-authority-should-be-preserved/ Jeb Hensarling and everybody else playing team Republican claim that the Orderly Liquidation Authority would cause bailouts. But, the fact of the matter is that the bankruptcy only option is probably more likely to lead to them. Quote These events, including the government’s response, remain controversial. What should not be controversial is that ordinary bankruptcy procedures were entirely inadequate for the situation. The bankruptcy judge in the Lehman case—required, by law, to focus narrowly on adjudicating creditors’ claims against the company—had neither the tools nor the mandate to try to mitigate the effects of the failure on the financial system or the economy. The Fed, FDIC, and Treasury used the powers available to them, often in ad hoc ways, to try to preserve broader stability. But these agencies likewise lacked a framework for dealing systematically with failing financial giants. .............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 If Watergate happened today, would it move the needle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 33 minutes ago, James Arryn said: If Watergate happened today, would it move the needle? Trump, Bannon and Co. make the Plumbers and Co. look like choirboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S John Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, James Arryn said: If Watergate happened today, would it move the needle? The most disheartening thing is that in any scandal Trump will deny and shift blame, and his supporters will believe him 100% even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I really don't know if there is anything he could do to cause some of his more hardcore supporters to turn against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 24 minutes ago, S John said: The most disheartening thing is that in any scandal Trump will deny and shift blame, and his supporters will believe him 100% even in the face of irrefutable evidence. I really don't know if there is anything he could do to cause some of his more hardcore supporters to turn against him. So, at the time Nixon resigned, didn't about 25% of the population still support him? The fact that very little would make "hardcore supporters" turn against someone is not unique to Trump. That's what being "hardcore" means, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.